Michael Biebl wrote:
> Michael Meskes wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:34:45PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Other users with similar problems might find the report if it's listed
with network-manager but they certainly won't find it under quota.
>>> I don't understand this logic. This
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:34:45PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Other users with similar problems might find the report if it's listed
>>> with network-manager but they certainly won't find it under quota.
>> I don't understand this logic. This error only happens when you
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:34:45PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Other users with similar problems might find the report if it's listed
> > with network-manager but they certainly won't find it under quota.
>
> I don't understand this logic. This error only happens when you have a
> setup which
Michael Meskes wrote:
>> I'm not saying, that quota is at fault here. I reassigned the bug mostly
>
> So why did you reassign the bug to quota?
I don't want to play BTS ping-pong, but I explained why. Please reread
my emails.
>
>> because it's imho not a bug in network-manager. network-manager
> I'm not saying, that quota is at fault here. I reassigned the bug mostly
So why did you reassign the bug to quota?
> because it's imho not a bug in network-manager. network-manager is
> simply not conceived for such a use case.
Other users with similar problems might find the report if it's li
Hi Michael,
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> reassign 419049 quota
>> ...
>> No, actually I don't quite agree that it's a bug in network-manager.
>
> Maybe in dbus?
Moving dbus (or network-manager that is) to a later point in the
shutdown
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> reassign 419049 quota
> ...
> No, actually I don't quite agree that it's a bug in network-manager.
Maybe in dbus?
> I'd argue that quota (and also the nfs umount script) shouldn't rely on
> a arbitrary priority number during shutdow
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> No, actually I don't quite agree that it's a bug in network-manager.
>> I'd argue that quota (and also the nfs umount script) shouldn't rely on
>> a arbitrary priority number during shutdown.
>> The real fix act
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> No, actually I don't quite agree that it's a bug in network-manager.
> I'd argue that quota (and also the nfs umount script) shouldn't rely on
> a arbitrary priority number during shutdown.
> The real fix actually would have to happen
reassign 419049 quota
thanks
Michael Meskes wrote:
> reassign 419049 network-manager
> thanks
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Indeed, after purging network-manager, the hang is fixed.
Watching the console, it appears that without network-manager,
reassign 419049 network-manager
thanks
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Indeed, after purging network-manager, the hang is fixed.
> >>
> >> Watching the console, it appears that without network-manager, the
> >> interface is taken down after quotas are.
> >
> >
Michael Meskes wrote:
> [CCing network-manager maintainers. Could you guys pleas have a look at
> this bug? Thanks. ]
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:03:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> Indeed, after purging network-manager, the hang is fixed.
>>
>> Watching the console, it appears that without n
Michael Meskes wrote:
> [CCing network-manager maintainers. Could you guys pleas have a look at
> this bug? Thanks. ]
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:03:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> Indeed, after purging network-manager, the hang is fixed.
>>
>> Watching the console, it appears that without n
13 matches
Mail list logo
